Tải bản đầy đủ

2018 abdominal sepsis

Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma

Massimo Sartelli
Matteo Bassetti
Ignacio Martin-Loeches Editors

Abdominal
Sepsis
A Multidisciplinary Approach


Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery
and Trauma
Series Editors
Federico Coccolini
Cesena, Italy
Raul Coimbra
San Diego, USA
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick
Calgary, Canada
Salomone Di Saverio

Cambridge, UK
Editorial Board:
Luca Ansaloni (Bergamo, Italy); Zsolt Balogh (Newcastle, Australia); Walt Biffl
(Denver, USA); Fausto Catena (Parma, Italy); Kimberly Davis (New Haven, USA);
Paula Ferrada (Richmond, USA); Gustavo Fraga (Campinas, Brazil); Rao Ivatury
(Richmond, USA); Yoram Kluger (Haifa, Israel); Ari Leppaniemi (Helsinki, Finland);
Ron Maier (Seattle, USA); Ernest E. Moore (Fort Collins, USA); Lena Napolitano
(Ann Arbor, USA); Andrew Peitzman (Pittsburgh, USA); Patrick Rielly (Philadelphia,
USA); Sandro Rizoli (Toronto, Canada); Boris Sakakushev (Plovdiv, Bulgaria);
Massimo Sartelli (Macerata, Italy); Thomas Scalea (Baltimore, USA); David Spain
(Stanford, USA); Philip Stahel (Denver, USA); Michael Sugrue (Letterkenny, Ireland);
George Velmahos (Boston, USA); Dieter Weber (Perth, Australia)


This series covers the most debated issues in acute care and trauma surgery, from
perioperative management to organizational and health policy issues. Since 2011,
the founder members of the World Society of Emergency Surgery’s (WSES) Acute
Care and Trauma Surgeons group, who endorse the series, realized the need to
provide more educational tools for young surgeons in training and for general
physicians and other specialists new to this discipline: WSES is currently developing
a systematic scientific and educational program founded on evidence-based
medicine and objective experience. Covering the complex management of acute
trauma and non-trauma surgical patients, this series makes a significant contribution
to this program and is a valuable resource for both trainees and practitioners in acute
care surgery.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15718


Massimo Sartelli  •  Matteo Bassetti
Ignacio Martin-Loeches
Editors

Abdominal Sepsis
A Multidisciplinary Approach


Editors
Massimo Sartelli
Department of Surgery
Macerata Hospital
Macerata, Italy
Ignacio Martin-Loeches
St James's University Hospital
Trinity Centre for Health Sciences
Dublin, Ireland

Matteo Bassetti
Clinica Malattie Infettive,
Dipartimento di Medicina
Università di Udine and Azienda
Ospedaliera Universitaria Santa Maria
della Misericordia
Presidio Ospedaliero Universitario Santa
Maria della Misercordia
Udine, Italy

ISSN 2520-8284    ISSN 2520-8292 (electronic)
Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma
ISBN 978-3-319-59703-4    ISBN 978-3-319-59704-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59704-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017954271
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland


Foreword

Since 2011, the founding members of the World Society of Emergency Surgery
(WSES) Acute Care and Trauma Surgeons group, in collaboration with the American
Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorse the development and publication of the “Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma,” realizing the need
to provide more educational tools for young in-training surgeons and for general
physicians and other surgical specialists. These new forthcoming titles have been
selected and prepared with this philosophy in mind. The books will cover the basics
of pathophysiology and clinical management, framed with the reference that recent
advances in the science of resuscitation, surgery, and critical care medicine have the
potential to profoundly alter the epidemiology and subsequent outcomes of severe
surgical illnesses and trauma. In particular, abdominal sepsis requires detailed
understanding as the population ages presenting with multiple co-morbidities. The
challenge of dealing with often elderly and sicker patients is potentially balanced
however by newer less invasive surgical techniques and advances in peri-operative
critical care, demanding careful judgement in applying the right therapies to the
right patients.
Cesena, Italy
San Diego, USA
Calgary, Canada
Cambridge, UK

F. Coccolini
R. Coimbra
A.W. Kirkpatrick
S. Di Saverio

v


Preface

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Management of IAIs requires a multidisciplinary approach. The treatment of
patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) involves both source
control and antimicrobial therapy. However, while surgical techniques improved
treatment modalities for these patients, the adequate use of antibiotics within the
management of cIAIs plays an integral role to prevent local and hematogenous
spread and to reduce late complications. The choice of empiric antibiotics in patients
with IAI should be based on the severity of the infection, the individual risk for
infection by resistant pathogens, and the local resistance profile. Predisposing conditions, the nature and extent of insult, the nature and magnitude of the host response,
and the degree of concomitant organ dysfunction provide a useful and novel
approach to IAIs. In this book, experts from different fields in the management of
severely ill patients affected by IAIs contributed to give a broad and multidisciplinary approach to the management of IAIs.
The first chapters of the book describe the difficulties related to classification,
diagnosis, the radiological caveats, and challenges in patients affected by IAIs. This
part is followed by a series of chapters that focus on the difficulties of source control, the alternatives in management, and the new developments of damage control
surgery. In the last chapters, the most severe spectrum of the disease is discussed,
with a focus on antibiotic management, including antifungals, hemodynamic support, and alternatives to adjunctive therapies in the pipeline.
When the book was conceived, our aim was to provide a broader approach to
IAIs, and this is the reason why, as said above, we decided to involve the most
renowned experts from three different disciplines: surgery infectious diseases, and
intensive care. We hope that this might help to integrate the information already
available to the readers, widening the perspective on this topic.
Macerata, Italy
Udine, Italy 
Dublin, Ireland 

Massimo Sartelli
Matteo Bassetti
Ignacio Martin-Loeches

vii


Contents

1Classification and Principals of Treatment������������������������������������������������  1
Amelia Simpson, Leslie Kobayashi, and Raul Coimbra
2Inflammatory Mediators in Intra-­abdominal Sepsis������������������������������  15
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Jimmy Xiao, Craig N. Jenne,
and Derek J. Roberts
3Intra-abdominal Sepsis and Imaging Considerations����������������������������  29
Asanthi M. Ratnasekera and Paula Ferrada
4High-Risk Patients and Prognostic Factors
for Abdominal Sepsis ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  37
Bruno M. Pereira and Gustavo P. Fraga
5Acute Appendicitis: What Is the Best Strategy to Treat Acute
Appendicitis (Both Complicated and Uncomplicated)? ������������������������  47
Matteo Mandrioli, Massimo Sartelli, Arianna Birindelli,
Edoardo Segalini, Fausto Catena, Federico Coccolini,
Luca Ansaloni, and Salomone Di Saverio
6Acute Cholecystitis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  51
Paola Fugazzola, Federico Coccolini, Giulia Montori, Cecilia Merli,
Michele Pisano, and Luca Ansaloni
7Acute Cholangitis ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  65
Zhongkai Wang, Saleem Ahmed, and Vishal G. Shelat
8Pyogenic Liver Abscess������������������������������������������������������������������������������  83
Yeo Danson, Tan Ming Yuan, and Vishal G. Shelat
9Gastroduodenal Perforations��������������������������������������������������������������������  95
Kjetil Søreide
10Small Bowel Perforations������������������������������������������������������������������������  105
Sanjy Marwah

ix


x

Contents

11Acute Colonic Diverticulitis��������������������������������������������������������������������  163
Jan Ulrych
12Postoperative Peritonitis: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment������������  179
Torsten Herzog and Waldemar Uhl
13Damage Control Surgery in Managing Abdominal Sepsis (Fausto
Catena, Italy)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 201
Fausto Catena and Gennaro Perrone
14Ongoing Peritonitis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 211
Andreas Hecker, Birgit Hecker, Christoph Lichtenstern, Matthias Hecker,
Jens G. Riedel, Markus A. Weigand, and Winfried Padberg
15Evolving Treatment Strategies for Severe Clostridium
difficile Colitis: Defining the Therapeutic Window������������������������������  225
Peter K. Kim, Peng Zhao, and Sheldon Teperman
16Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Principles
of Antimicrobial Therapy������������������������������������������������������������������������  241
Matteo Bassetti, Elda Righi, and Massimo Sartelli
17Antimicrobial Armamentarium��������������������������������������������������������������� 249
Sean M. Stainton and David P. Nicolau
18Antimicrobial Resistance in Intra-­abdominal Infections ��������������������  265
Garyphallia Poulakou, Georgios Siakallis, and Sotirios Tsiodras
19The Role of  Candida in Abdominal Sepsis��������������������������������������������  287
Philippe Montravers, Aurélie Snauwaert, Claire Geneve,
and Mouna Ben Rehouma
20The Value and Interpretation of Microbiological
Specimens in the Management of cIAI��������������������������������������������������  301
Warren Lowman
21Appropriate Antimicrobial Therapy in Critically Ill Patients������������  319
Fekade B. Sime and Jason A. Roberts
22Hemodynamic Support����������������������������������������������������������������������������  343
Pedro Povoa and António Carneiro
23Adjunctive Therapies in Abdominal Sepsis�������������������������������������������� 359
Thomas Ryan and John D. Coakley
24Impact and Management of Abdominal Compartment
Syndrome in Patients with Abdominal Sepsis��������������������������������������  369
Jan J. De Waele


Contents

xi

25Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with Abdominal Sepsis��������������������  379
Federico Coccolini, Fausto Catena, Giulia Montori, Marco Ceresoli,
Paola Fugazzola, Matteo Tomasoni, Davide Corbella,
Sartelli Massimo, and Luca Ansaloni
26Nutritional Support for Abdominal Sepsis��������������������������������������������  389
Martin D. Rosenthal, Cameron M. Rosenthal, Amir Y. Kamel,
and Frederick A. Moore


1

Classification and Principals
of Treatment
Amelia Simpson, Leslie Kobayashi, and Raul Coimbra

1.1

Introduction

Intra-abdominal infection (IAI) is the second most common cause of severe sepsis
in the intensive care unit (ICU). Even with optimal care, this disease process confers
significant morbidity and mortality. The most common causes of IAI involve inflammation and perforation of the gastrointestinal tract including appendicitis, diverticulitis, and peptic ulcer disease. Other etiologies often more challenging to treat
include postoperative complications, iatrogenic procedural complications, and traumatic injuries. Treatment is multimodal including, most importantly, source control
in conjunction with timely systemic antimicrobial therapy, resuscitation, and supportive care. Given the wide spectrum of disease from focal isolated inflammation
to diffuse peritonitis with septic shock and organ failure, the treatment is varied and
complex. This chapter includes a review of clinical definitions and classification of
the disease process as well as a basic overview of treatment.

A. Simpson, M.D. • L. Kobayashi, M.D., F.A.C.S. • R. Coimbra, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. (*)
Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Burns, and Acute Care Surgery,
University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
e-mail: rcoimbra@ucsd.edu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
M. Sartelli et al. (eds.), Abdominal Sepsis, Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery
and Trauma, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59704-1_1

1


2

1.2

A. Simpson et al.

Classification

1.2.1 Intra-abdominal Infections
IAI is the inflammatory response of the peritoneum to microorganisms and their
toxins which produces purulence within the abdomen [1]. These intra-abdominal
infections are classified as uncomplicated or complicated based on the extent of
infection within the abdominal cavity (Fig. 1.1).
An uncomplicated IAI is confined to a single organ. There is intramural inflammation of the organ, but no perforation. These infections are generally simple to
treat with surgical source control; however, delay in diagnosis, delay in definitive
treatment, or infection with a virulent or nosocomial microbe can result in advancement to a complicated IAI [2–4].
Complicated IAIs spread beyond the causal organ when the viscus perforates
into the peritoneal cavity. Peritoneal inflammation occurs causing localized or diffuse peritonitis and greater activation of the systemic inflammatory response system
[3, 5]. Localized peritonitis is often a result of a contained infection or abscess.
Diffuse peritonitis is associated with higher morbidity and mortality and requires
urgent surgical treatment. Diffuse peritonitis is divided into primary, secondary, and
tertiary forms.
Most intra-abdominal infections activate the inflammatory cascade; however,
an IAI which causes severe sepsis or septic shock is described as abdominal
sepsis [3].

Intra-abdominal infection

(Health care vs. community acquired source)

Uncomplicated
infection

Complicated
infection

Localized peritonitis
(abscess)

Primary
peritonitis

Diffuse peritonitis

Secondary
peritonitis

Fig. 1.1  Classification of intra-abdominal infections

Tertiary
peritonitis


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

3

1.2.2 Peritonitis
1.2.2.1 Primary Peritonitis
Primary peritonitis also known as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is the result of
bacterial translocation across the GI tract in the absence of any discrete visceral
defect. Bacterial translocation occurs via multiple proposed mechanisms including
alterations in the local immune defense, intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and impairment in the intestinal barrier [6, 7]. These infections are frequently caused by a
single organism and afflict specific patient populations. Commonly cirrhotic patients
are infected with gram-negative or Enterococci organisms, peritoneal dialysis
patients with Staphylococcus aureus, and young females with Pneumococcus species [8, 9]. Physical findings may be subtle. The diagnosis is made by peritoneal
fluid aspirate. Peritoneal fluid will show >500 white blood cells/mm3, increased
lactate, and/or low glucose. Positive fluid cultures are diagnostic. Resolution is indicated by a decrease in the peritoneal white blood cell count to <250/mm3 [10].
Primary peritonitis is treated with systemic antibiotics tailored to the offending
organism [11]. Outcome is generally good following appropriate therapy; however, mortality is increased among patients requiring admission to the intensive care
unit [12].
1.2.2.2 Secondary Peritonitis
Secondary peritonitis is caused by direct peritoneal contamination from the GI tract
due to perforation, injury, or necrosis [8, 13]. Etiologies include acute perforation,
specifically perforated appendicitis, perforated ulcers, diverticular disease, volvulus, cancer, or small bowel obstruction. Additional causes include postoperative
complications such as anastomotic dehiscence and traumatic blunt or penetrating
injuries [14]. Diagnosis of secondary peritonitis is mostly based on history and clinical examination. Specific diagnoses can be confirmed with diagnostic imaging,
most often computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound [15]. Ultrasonography is a
particularly useful initial imaging for the diagnosis of biliary sources of peritonitis;
however, CT of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous and oral contrast is the
standard imaging modality to diagnose intra-abdominal causes of peritonitis [16]. It
must be kept in mind that only patients who are well resuscitated and hemodynamically stable should undergo CT scanning. Secondary peritonitis is generally polymicrobial with the causal organisms correlating to the source of contamination.
1.2.2.3 Tertiary Peritonitis
The International Sepsis Forum Consensus defines tertiary peritonitis as peritonitis
which persists or recurs >48 h following apparently successful management of primary or secondary peritonitis [17]. This is thought to be due to altered microbial
flora, failure of immune response, or progressive organ dysfunction. Patient age,
malnutrition, and the presence of multidrug-resistant organisms may be risk factors
for developing tertiary peritonitis. A microbial shift occurs in these patients toward
less virulent organisms such as Enterococcus, Enterobacter, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Candida [18–20].


4

A. Simpson et al.

An additional critically important distinction in this disease process is differentiating community-acquired IAIs from hospital acquired IAIs. Community-acquired
infections are sensitive to narrow-spectrum antimicrobial agents. Hospital-acquired
cases develop in hospitalized patients, residents of long-term care facilities, or
patients who have recently been treated with antibiotics. All postoperative IAIs are
therefore hospital-acquired intra-abdominal infections. Not surprisingly, hospital-­
acquired IAIs are associated with increased mortality [21].

1.3

Prognostic Evaluation

Early prognostication of patients with IAIs is crucial to assess severity and decide
on the aggressiveness of treatment. Numerous factors affecting the prognosis of
patients with complicated IAIs have been described including advanced age, poor
nutritional status, preexisting comorbid conditions, immunosuppression, presence
of abdominal sepsis, poor source control, end-organ failure, prolonged hospitalization, and infection with nosocomial organisms [22–26]. Stratification of the patient’s
risk is paramount in order to optimize the treatment plan. Patients are generally
categorized as low risk or high risk. High risk describes patients who are at high risk
for treatment failure and mortality; therefore, early prognostic evaluation is critical
to appropriately treat the high-risk patients aggressively [27]. There are several
scoring systems used to stratify patients. There are disease-independent scores for
evaluation of patients requiring the intensive care unit admission such as APACHE
II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II). There are also peritonitis-­
specific scores such as Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI). More recently, the WSES
Sepsis Severity Score is a new scoring system for complicated IAIs that considers
infection-related factors and patient clinical characteristics and is easy to
calculate [27].

1.4

Treatment

The key components of the treatment of abdominal sepsis include source control,
resuscitation and organ support, and systemic antibiotic therapy. The most critical
component is source control [28]. Minimizing time from presentation to diagnosis
and treatment significantly reduces morbidity and mortality [29].

1.4.1 Source Control
Source control is defined as the physical eradication of a focus of infection as well
as modifying any risk factors that maintain infection such as ongoing spillage or
leakage of enteric contents. Inadequate source control at the time of initial treatment
is associated with increased mortality in patients with IAIs despite optimal antibiotic therapy, resuscitation, and organ support [30].


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

5

1.4.1.1 Drainage
The goal of drainage is to evacuate purulent fluid or to control ongoing contamination. This can be performed in a percutaneous or open surgical manner. Percutaneous
drainage is less invasive, less expensive, and ideal for contained abscesses or fluid
pockets. It is most commonly performed with ultrasound or CT guidance [31, 32].
This technique is also useful for poor surgical candidates who would not tolerate the
stress of an operation (Fig. 1.2).
Complex abscesses with enteric connection should be drained operatively [33]
(Fig. 1.3). Surgical drainage should also be used to treat complex generalized peritonitis, ongoing enteric contamination, if necrotic or ischemic bowel is suspected or
if percutaneous drainage has failed. Depending on the clinical situation and surgeon
experience, this can be safely done in a laparoscopic or open manner [34].
Debridement of necrotic tissue and removal of fecal matter, gross contamination,
hematoma, and foreign bodies are critical for adequate source control. Removal of
fibrin deposits has been described, however has been shown to have no benefit, and
is therefore not generally performed [35].
Intra-abdominal lavage is a debated technique for treatment of peritonitis.
Advocates of peritoneal lavage argue that the technique improves outcomes in four
ways. First, the solution acts as a physical cleanser by washing away contamination,
bacteria, blood, and bile. Second, using lavage volumes greater than 10 L has a
dilutional effect on contamination and bacteria. Third when antimicrobial agents are
added to the lavage solution, specific offending microbes can be targeted. Lastly,
use of a hypotonic solution will result in tumor and bacterial cell lysis [36].
Unfortunately the use of this technique for treatment of abdominal sepsis is largely
unsupported by the literature as most recent studies have not shown any benefit
from peritoneal lavage with or without the addition of antibiotics [37, 38].

Fig. 1.2  A CT image of
an intra-abdominal
abscess (arrow) amenable
to percutaneous drainage


6

A. Simpson et al.

Fig. 1.3  A CT image of a complex intra-abdominal fluid collection with free air (arrow) and fecal
contamination requiring surgical exploration

1.4.1.2 Damage Control Laparotomy
Clinically unstable patients or those with difficult or complicated anatomy such as
postoperative patients and those with advanced malignancies or with intra-­
abdominal hypertension (IAH) are particularly problematic to treat surgically. In
these situations a staged approach or damage control techniques can be useful with
the use of a temporary abdominal closure. The concept of damage control laparotomy (DCL) first began in trauma patients and has since spread to the general and
vascular surgery realms. Damage control principles are now widely adopted in
abdominal surgical emergencies where primary closure is not advisable [39]. The
DCL technique has three stages. The first stage is an abbreviated initial procedure
aimed at controlling contamination; removal of infected, necrotic, or ischemic tissue; and hemorrhage control. If needed because of instability or questionable tissue viability, the bowel can be left in discontinuity. This initial procedure is
concluded with a temporary abdominal closure (TAC). The TAC should prevent
evisceration, evacuate fluid, allow quick access to the abdomen, and allow for
abdominal swelling [40, 41]. The second stage of DCL is resuscitation aimed at
restoring normal physiology. Once this is achieved and concerns for ongoing ischemia, necrosis, and IAH are resolved, the patient is taken back to the operating
room for the third stage which is definitive source control, reconstruction, and
abdominal wall closure [42].
1.4.1.3 Planned Relaparotomy Versus On-Demand Relaparotomy
There are two accepted strategies for relaparotomy. First is a planned relaparotomy.
The second is on-demand relaparotomy performed only when the patient’s condition demand it. Planned relaparotomy is performed every 36–48 h for evaluation,
drainage, and lavage until resolution of ongoing peritonitis. This strategy can lead
to early detection of ongoing peritonitis or new infection with the goal of preventing


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

7

ongoing sepsis and development of multiorgan failure. Unfortunately this can lead
to unnecessary laparotomies without improvement in outcomes. The on-demand
laparotomy strategy is intended to perform repeat laparotomy only on patients who
clinically would benefit from surgery. Specifically those who require on-demand
laparotomy are patients with clinical deterioration or lack of improvement after
initial laparotomy. This treatment strategy requires close monitoring of patients
with clinical criteria, laboratory studies, and imaging to efficiently identify patients
who require relaparotomy. It also allows for less invasive percutaneous image-­
guided interventions to address ongoing infections or abscesses instead of a planned
relaparotomy. This strategy harbors risk of potentially harmful delay in the detection of ongoing peritonitis [43]. The goal of on-demand laparotomy is to identify
patients at risk for persistent intra-abdominal sepsis and intervene before developing multiorgan failure. Studies have shown significant cost savings and shorter ICU
and hospital stay and number of days on the ventilator with the on-demand laparotomy strategy compared with planned re-laparotomy [44, 45]. Studies have not
shown a difference in mortality between the two strategies, and specific clinical
criteria are still needed to improve the accuracy of identifying patients requiring
on-demand laparotomy [45–47].

1.4.1.4 Definitive Management
Definitive management involves restoration of function and anatomy. Staged procedures with temporary intestinal diversion were once standard; however, in the stable, physiologically normal patient, single-stage procedures can be safely performed
and are cost-effective [48]. Nevertheless, in patients who will not tolerate longer
procedures and have poor tissue healing capacity or little physiologic reserve,
staged procedures with enteric diversion are still the preferred operative choice [4].

1.4.2 Resuscitation and Organ Support
Intra-abdominal infections result in volume depletion both from significant insensible losses and third spacing of fluid from sepsis-driven capillary leak. As with
many infectious processes, fever results in fluid loss from diaphoresis, and tachypnea increases respiratory losses. Common symptoms of IAIs include nausea, vomiting, and decreased oral intake which all lead to dehydration and further fluid
losses. Bowel wall edema and ascites can occur from the IAI associated ileus and
inflammatory process. The systemic inflammatory response cascade will cause further volume depletion due to capillary leak and third spacing of fluid. Expedient
volume resuscitation is therefore critical in the treatment of IAIs and abdominal
sepsis. Any patient with severe sepsis or septic shock should be admitted to the
intensive care unit for close monitoring of hemodynamics and volume status. The
first 6 h of resuscitation should be performed following the Surviving Sepsis
Campaign Guidelines. Isotonic fluid should be used for volume resuscitation or
blood products in the setting of anemia or coagulopathy to achieve a goal central
venous pressure (CVP) of 8–12 mmHg, mean arterial pressure (MAP) of >65 mmHg,


8

A. Simpson et al.

goal urine output of >0.5 mL/kg/h, and central venous or mixed venous oxygen
saturation of 70% or 65%, respectively [49]. A number of large randomized control
trials have evaluated crystalloid versus colloid as a resuscitation fluid in sepsis. No
randomized trial or meta-analysis has demonstrated definitive benefit from using
colloid for resuscitation [50–54]. Crystalloid is markedly cheaper, readily available,
and should be used as the fluid of choice for resuscitation. If fluid resuscitation is
inadequate to maintain minimal hemodynamic parameters, vasopressors should be
started. Norepinephrine is the preferred first-line agent [49, 55]. Vasopressin can be
added to norepinephrine if needed, and epinephrine and dopamine are alternative
agents to norepinephrine [49]. In the setting of myocardial dysfunction suggested
by low cardiac output or high cardiac filling pressures, dobutamine may be effective
in maintaining adequate MAP [49].
Indicators of end-organ function such as mental status and urine output should be
closely monitored to ensure adequate tissue perfusion. Tissue perfusion and correction of oxygen debt can also be measured by a number of laboratory endpoints
including base deficit, lactate level, and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SVO2).
Base deficit is the amount of base needed to titrate whole blood to a normal pH (7.4)
at normal physiologic conditions, and because it is measured when PCO2 is normal,
it is a more specific marker of non-respiratory acid base disturbances than serum
bicarbonate [56]. Increased base deficit correlates with amount of global tissue acidosis, resuscitation requirements, and mortality [57, 58]. Elevated lactate is a result
of tissue dysoxia and has been used as an indirect measure of oxygen debt. Lactate
accumulation in sepsis may not be the result of tissue oxygen deprivation and
instead as a result of a hypermetabolic state with enhanced glycolysis and hyperlactatemia. It is therefore a less reliable indicator of oxygen debt, but decreasing levels
of serum lactate may still be associated with improved outcomes [59, 60]. SVO2 is
dependent on cardiac output, oxygen demand, and hemoglobin and arterial oxygen
saturation. A septic patient may have normal or elevated SVO2 but not have adequate tissue oxygenation due to misdistribution of blood flow. Despite this, a low
SVO2 is an indicator of inadequate tissue oxygenation and requires quick intervention to increase oxygen delivery [61]. Using a resuscitation goal of SVO2 > 65% has
been shown to improve outcomes [62].
None of these measured endpoints of tissue oxygenation are definitive on their
own. They are single data points, which should be evaluated in combination with the
clinical picture, hemodynamic measures, and end-organ function to guide
resuscitation.

1.4.3 Antimicrobial Therapy
1.4.3.1 Empiric Antibiotic Therapy
Source control is the cornerstone of treatment for IAIs; however, systemic antibiotic
therapy is a critical adjunct. Uncomplicated IAIs are generally managed surgically
and only require perioperative antibiotics. Complicated IAIs require early systemic
antibiotic therapy to prevent bacteremia and spread of the infection and for the


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

9

reduction of late complications [63]. Timing to initiation of antibiotics is important
and in cases of abdominal sepsis is critical and should occur within 1 h of diagnosis
[49]. There are a number of standardized antibiotic regimens used in IAIs. The regimen used depends on the source of infection, patient’s immune status, and likelihood of resistant organisms. Due to the variable pattern of flora in the gastrointestinal
tract, the location of the perforated viscous will determine the offending organism.
In a healthy individual, the stomach and duodenum are largely sterile or sparsely
colonized with gram-positive organisms, lactobacilli, or Candida. Gram-negative
organisms are found in the proximal small bowel and anaerobes in the distal small
bowel and colon [8, 64]. If the source of IAI is known, location-specific organisms
can be targeted. IAIs with unknown source should be treated with a broad-spectrum
regimen based on patient risk factors. If there are no identifiable patient risk factors
and the patient is deemed low risk, narrow-spectrum antibiotics can be started covering anaerobic and gram-negative organisms [8]. High-risk patients require broad-­
spectrum antibiotics covering for resistant organisms and tailored to the
institution-specific antibiogram. Inadequate initial antibiotic treatment results in
longer hospital stays, higher rates of postoperative abscesses and reoperation, and
increased mortality [25, 65]. Cultures should be taken in high-risk patients so that
antibiotics can then be de-escalated and tailored to the offending organism [66].

1.4.3.2 Length of  Treatment
Judicious and rational use of antimicrobials is a vital part of clinical practice in
order to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance and worsening of emerging
infections such as Clostridium difficile. For IAIs, timely empiric coverage with antimicrobials is critical for treatment, but mindfulness over length of treatment must
also be considered. Previous practice involved continuing antibiotic therapy until
resolution of fever, leukocytosis, and return of bowel function [67]. However, more
recent studies have shown that a fixed shorter treatment course is adequate. Several
recent studies have demonstrated that a 4-day course of antibiotics in conjunction
with adequate source control had the same outcomes as longer courses of antibiotics
in patients with complicated IAIs and abdominal sepsis [68, 69]. In fact, protracted
antibiotic courses may be harmful. IAIs treated for greater than 7 days with antimicrobials were associated with increased extra-abdominal infections and mortality
[70]. A recent task force termed AGORA (antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections) put forth a set of recommendations emphasizing early empiric treatment and the use of narrow-spectrum
antimicrobials for community-acquired low-risk infections and broad-spectrum
antimicrobials for hospital-acquired or high-risk infections. This task force also
found that a treatment course as short as 4 days was sufficient for most patients with
complicated IAIs when source control had been obtained [71]. Additionally, once
tolerating oral intake, antimicrobials should be switched from intravenous to oral
regimens and narrowed based on sensitivities from culture data [71]. Patients with
signs of infection beyond 5–7 days of antibiotic treatment should undergo aggressive diagnostic maneuvers to identify ongoing uncontrolled sources of infection,
antimicrobial treatment failure, or tertiary peritonitis [3].


10

A. Simpson et al.

Conclusion

Optimal care of IAI hinges on timely multifactorial care. Source control is the
cornerstone of treatment and is tailored to the severity of the infection ranging
from minimally invasive surgery or percutaneous drainage to a staged or damage control approach. Aggressive resuscitation and supportive care are paramount for physiologic recovery from the stress of the infection as well as the
surgical intervention. Early, empiric antibiotic therapy based on patient risk
stratification should be limited to a short fixed course unless the patient has
poor clinical response in which case reassessment and possible re-intervention
are indicated.

References
1.Wittmann DH, Schein M, Condon RE. Management of secondary peritonitis. Ann Surg.
1996;224:10–8.
2.Merlino JI, Yowler CJ, Malangoni MA. Nosocomial infections adversely affect the outcomes
of patients with serious intraabdominal infections. Surg Infect. 2004;5:21–7.
3.Pieracci FM, Barie PS. Management of severe sepsis of abdominal origin. Scand J Surg.
2007;96:184–96.
4.Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, Rodvold KA, Goldstein EJ, Baron EJ, O’Neill PJ,
Chow AW, Dellinger EP, Eachempati SR, Gorbach S, Hilfiker M, May AK, Nathens AB,
Sawyer RG, Bartlett JG. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection
in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases
Society of America. Surg Infect. 2010;11:79–109.
5.Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Baron EJ, Sawyer RG, Nathens AB, Dipiro JT, Buchman T,
Dellinger EP, Jernigan J, Gorbach S, Chow AW, Bartlett J, Infectious Diseases Society of
America. Guidelines for the selection of anti-infective agents for complicated intra-abdominal
infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:997–1005.
6. Cirera I, Bauer TM, Navasa M, Vila J, Grande L, Taura P, Fuster J, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Lacy
A, Suarez MJ, Rimola A, Rodes J. Bacterial translocation of enteric organisms in patients with
cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2001;34:32–7.
7.Sola R, Soriano G. Why do bacteria reach ascitic fluid? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2002;14(4):351.
8. Marshall JC, Innes M. Intensive care unit management of intra-abdominal infection. Crit Care
Med. 2003;31:2228–37.
9. Williams JD, Coles GA. Gram-positive infections related to CAPD. J Antimicrob Chemother.
1991;27(Suppl B):31–5.
10.Ljubicic N, Spajic D, Vrkljan MM, Altabas V, Doko M, Zovak M, Gacina P, Mihatov
S. The value of ascitic fluid polymorphonuclear cell count determination during therapy of
spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepato-Gastroenterology.
2000;47:1360–3.
11.Chavez-Tapia NC, Soares-Weiser K, Brezis M, Leibovici L. Antibiotics for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):Cd002232.
12.Thuluvath PJ, Morss S, Thompson R. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis—in-hospital mortality, predictors of survival, and health care costs from 1988 to 1998. Am J Gastroenterol.
2001;96:1232–6.
13.Laroche M, Harding G. Primary and secondary peritonitis: an update. Eur J Clin Microbiol
Infect Dis. 1998;17:542–50.
14. Rotstein OD, Meakins JL. Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of intraabdominal infections.
World J Surg. 1990;14:159–66.


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

11

15. Adam EJ, Page JE. Intra-abdominal sepsis: the role of radiology. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol.
1991;5:587–609.
16.Crandall M, West MA. Evaluation of the abdomen in the critically ill patient: opening the
black box. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:333–9.
17. Calandra T, Cohen J, International Sepsis Forum Definition of Infection in the ICU Consensus
Conference. The international sepsis forum consensus conference on definitions of infection
in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1538–48.
18.Mishra SP, Tiwary SK, Mishra M, Gupta SK. An introduction of tertiary peritonitis. J Emerg
Trauma Shock. 2014;7:121–3.
19.Nathens AB, Rotstein OD, Marshall JC. Tertiary peritonitis: clinical features of a complex
nosocomial infection. World J Surg. 1998;22:158–63.
20.Panhofer P, Izay B, Riedl M, Ferenc V, Ploder M, Jakesz R, Gotzinger P. Age, microbiology and prognostic scores help to differentiate between secondary and tertiary peritonitis.
Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2009;394:265–71.
21. Pacelli F, Doglietto GB, Alfieri S, Piccioni E, Sgadari A, Gui D, Crucitti F. Prognosis in intra-­
abdominal infections. Multivariate analysis on 604 patients. Arch Surg. 1996;131:641–5.
22.Horiuchi A, Watanabe Y, Doi T, Sato K, Yukumi S, Yoshida M, Yamamoto Y, Sugishita H,
Kawachi K. Evaluation of prognostic factors and scoring system in colonic perforation. World
J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:3228–31.
23. Koperna T, Schulz F. Prognosis and treatment of peritonitis. Do we need new scoring systems?
Arch Surg. 1996;131:180–6.
24.Mclauchlan GJ, Anderson ID, Grant IS, Fearon KC. Outcome of patients with abdominal
sepsis treated in an intensive care unit. Br J Surg. 1995;82:524–9.
25.Montravers P, Gauzit R, Muller C, Marmuse JP, Fichelle A, Desmonts JM. Emergence of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria in cases of peritonitis after intraabdominal surgery affects the efficacy of empirical antimicrobial therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23:486–94.
26.Ohmann C, Yang Q, Hau T, Wacha H. Prognostic modelling in peritonitis. Peritonitis Study
Group of the Surgical Infection Society Europe. Eur J Surg. 1997;163:53–60.
27.Sartelli M, Abu-Zidan FM, Catena F, Griffiths EA, Di Saverio S, Coimbra R, Ordonez CA,
Leppaniemi A, Fraga GP, Coccolini F, Agresta F, Abbas A, Abdel Kader S, Agboola J, Amhed
A, Ajibade A, Akkucuk S, Alharthi B, Anyfantakis D, Augustin G, Baiocchi G, Bala M,
Baraket O, Bayrak S, Bellanova G, Beltran MA, Bini R, Boal M, Borodach AV, Bouliaris
K, Branger F, Brunelli D, Catani M, Che Jusoh A, Chichom-Mefire A, Cocorullo G, Colak
E, Costa D, Costa S, Cui Y, Curca GL, Curry T, Das K, Delibegovic S, Demetrashvili Z, Di
Carlo I, Drozdova N, El Zalabany T, Enani MA, Faro M, Gachabayov M, Gimenez Maurel T,
Gkiokas G, Gomes CA, Gonsaga RA, Guercioni G, Guner A, Gupta S, Gutierrez S, Hutan M,
Ioannidis O, Isik A, Izawa Y, Jain SA, Jokubauskas M, Karamarkovic A, Kauhanen S, Kaushik
R, Kenig J, Khokha V, Kim JI, Kong V, Koshy R, Krasniqi A, Kshirsagar A, Kuliesius Z,
Lasithiotakis K, Leao P, Lee JG, Leon M, Lizarazu Perez A, Lohsiriwat V, Lopez-Tomassetti
Fernandez E, Lostoridis E, Mn R, Major P, Marinis A, Marrelli D, Martinez-Perez A, Marwah
S, Mcfarlane M, Melo RB, Mesina C, Michalopoulos N, Moldovanu R, Mouaqit O, Munyika
A, Negoi I, Nikolopoulos I, Nita GE, et al. Global validation of the WSES Sepsis Severity
Score for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a prospective multicentre
study (WISS Study). World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:61.
28. Sartelli M. A focus on intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2010;5:9.
29.Pitcher WD, Musher DM. Critical importance of early diagnosis and treatment of intra-­
abdominal infection. Arch Surg. 1982;117:328–33.
30.Wacha H, Hau T, Dittmer R, Ohmann C. Risk factors associated with intraabdominal infections: a prospective multicenter study. Peritonitis Study Group. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg.
1999;384:24–32.
31. Bufalari A, Giustozzi G, Moggi L. Postoperative intraabdominal abscesses: percutaneous versus surgical treatment. Acta Chir Belg. 1996;96:197–200.
32. Hemming A, Davis NL, Robins RE. Surgical versus percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal
abscesses. Am J Surg. 1991;161(5):593.


12

A. Simpson et al.

33.Malangoni MA, Shumate CR, Thomas HA, Richardson JD. Factors influencing the treatment
of intra-abdominal abscesses. Am J Surg. 1990;159:167–71.
34. Coccolini F, Trana C, Sartelli M, Catena F, Di Saverio S, Manfredi R, Montori G, Ceresoli M,
Falcone C, Ansaloni L. Laparoscopic management of intra-abdominal infections: systematic
review of the literature. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7:160–9.
35.Polk HC Jr, Fry DE. Radical peritoneal debridement for established peritonitis. The results of
a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 1980;192:350–5.
36.Whiteside OJ, Tytherleigh MG, Thrush S, Farouk R, Galland RB. Intra-operative peritoneal
lavage—who does it and why? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87:255–8.
37. Hunt JL. Generalized peritonitis. To irrigate or not to irrigate the abdominal cavity. Arch Surg.
1982;117:209–12.
38.Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel W, Gerding H, Becker PJ. Peritoneal lavage in abdominal
sepsis. A controlled clinical study. Arch Surg. 1990;125:1132–5.
39. Open Abdomen Advisory Panel, Campbell A, Chang M, Fabian T, Franz M, Kaplan M, Moore
F, Reed RL, Scott B, Silverman R. Management of the open abdomen: from initial operation
to definitive closure. Am Surg. 2009;75:S1–22.
40.Aydin C, Aytekin FO, Yenisey C, Kabay B, Erdem E, Kocbil G, Tekin K. The effect of different temporary abdominal closure techniques on fascial wound healing and postoperative
adhesions in experimental secondary peritonitis. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2008;393:67–73.
41. Barker DE, Green JM, Maxwell RA, Smith PW, Mejia VA, Dart BW, Cofer JB, Roe SM, Burns
RP. Experience with vacuum-pack temporary abdominal wound closure in 258 trauma and general and vascular surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:784–92. Discussion 792–3
42.Godat L, Kobayashi L, Costantini T, Coimbra R. Abdominal damage control surgery and
reconstruction: World Society of Emergency Surgery position paper. World J Emerg Surg.
2013;8:53.
43.Van Goor H. Interventional management of abdominal sepsis: when and how. Langenbeck’s
Arch Surg. 2002;387:191–200.
44.Opmeer BC, Boer KR, Van Ruler O, Reitsma JB, Gooszen HG, De Graaf PW, Lamme B,
Gerhards MF, Steller EP, Mahler CM, Obertop H, Gouma DJ, Bossuyt PM, De Borgie CA,
Boermeester MA. Costs of relaparotomy on-demand versus planned relaparotomy in patients
with severe peritonitis: an economic evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care.
2010;14:R97.
45.Van Ruler O, Mahler CW, Boer KR, Reuland EA, Gooszen HG, Opmeer BC, De Graaf PW,
Lamme B, Gerhards MF, Steller EP, Van Till JW, De Borgie CJ, Gouma DJ, Reitsma JB,
Boermeester MA, Dutch Peritonitis Study Group. Comparison of on-demand vs. planned
relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis: a randomized trial. JAMA.
2007b;298:865–72.
46.Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Reitsma JB, Mahler CW, Obertop H, Gouma DJ. Meta-analysis
of relaparotomy for secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg. 2002;89:1516–24.
47.Van Ruler O, Lamme B, Gouma DJ, Reitsma JB, Boermeester MA. Variables associated
with positive findings at relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. Crit Care Med.
2007a;35:468–76.
48. Schilling MK, Maurer CA, Kollmar O, Buchler MW. Primary vs. secondary anastomosis after
sigmoid colon resection for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey stage III and IV): a prospective
outcome and cost analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:699–703. Discussion 703–5
49.Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal SM, Sevransky JE, Sprung
CL, Douglas IS, Jaeschke R, Osborn TM, Nunnally ME, Townsend SR, Reinhart K, Kleinpell
RM, Angus DC, Deutschman CS, Machado FR, Rubenfeld GD, Webb SA, Beale RJ, Vincent
JL, Moreno R, Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee Including The Pediatric
Subgroup. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:580–637.
50.Bunn F, Trivedi D. Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2012;(6):Cd001319.


1  Classification and Principals of Treatment

13

51.Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, French J, Myburgh J, Norton R, SAFE Study Investigators.
A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl
J Med. 2004;350:2247–56.
52.Jacob M, Chappell D, Conzen P, Wilkes MM, Becker BF, Rehm M. Small-volume resuscitation with hyperoncotic albumin: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care.
2008;12:R34.
53.Perel P, Roberts I, Ker K. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill
patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):Cd000567.
54.Roberts I, Blackhall K, Alderson P, Bunn F, Schierhout G. Human albumin solution for
resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2011;(11):Cd001208.
55. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, Madl C, Chochrad D, Aldecoa C, Brasseur A, Defrance P,
Gottignies P, Vincent JL, SOAP II Investigators. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine
in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:779–89.
56.Severinghaus JW. Acid-base balance controversy. Case for standard-base excess as the measure of nonrespiratory acid-base imbalance. J Clin Monit. 1991;7:276–7.
57. Davis JW, Shackford SR, Mackersie RC, Hoyt DB. Base deficit as a guide to volume resuscitation. J Trauma. 1988;28:1464–7.
58.Rutherford EJ, Morris JA Jr, Reed GW, Hall KS. Base deficit stratifies mortality and determines therapy. J Trauma. 1992;33:417–23.
59.James JH, Luchette FA, Mccarter FD, Fischer JE. Lactate is an unreliable indicator of tissue
hypoxia in injury or sepsis. Lancet. 1999;354:505–8.
60. Levy B. Lactate and shock state: the metabolic view. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:315–21.
61. Vincent JL, Gerlach H. Fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis and septic shock: an evidence-based
review. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:S451–4.
62.Yu M, Burchell S, Hasaniya NW, Takanishi DM, Myers SA, Takiguchi SA. Relationship of
mortality to increasing oxygen delivery in patients > or = 50 years of age: a prospective, randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1011–9.
63. Blot S, De Waele JJ. Critical issues in the clinical management of complicated intra-abdominal
infections. Drugs. 2005;65:1611–20.
64.Savage DC. Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract. Annu Rev Microbiol.

1977;31:107–33.
65.Mosdell DM, Morris DM, Voltura A, Pitcher DE, Twiest MW, Milne RL, Miscall BG, Fry
DE. Antibiotic treatment for surgical peritonitis. Ann Surg. 1991;214:543–9.
66. Solomkin JS, Mazuski J. Intra-abdominal sepsis: newer interventional and antimicrobial therapies. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2009;23:593–608.
67. Stone HH, Bourneuf AA, Stinson LD. Reliability of criteria for predicting persistent or recurrent sepsis. Arch Surg. 1985;120:17–20.
68. Rattan R, Namias N, Sawyer RG. Patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection presenting with sepsis do not require longer duration of antimicrobial therapy: in reply to Spartalis
and colleagues. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:206–7.
69. Sawyer RG, Claridge JA, Nathens AB, Rotstein OD, Duane TM, Evans HL, Cook CH, O’Neill
PJ, Mazuski JE, Askari R, Wilson MA, Napolitano LM, Namias N, Miller PR, Dellinger EP,
Watson CM, Coimbra R, Dent DL, Lowry SF, Cocanour CS, West MA, Banton KL, Cheadle
WG, Lipsett PA, Guidry CA, Popovsky K. Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for
intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1996–2005.
70.Riccio LM, Popovsky KA, Hranjec T, Politano AD, Rosenberger LH, Tura KC, Sawyer
RG. Association of excessive duration of antibiotic therapy for intra-abdominal infection with
subsequent extra-abdominal infection and death: a study of 2552 consecutive infections. Surg
Infect. 2014;15:417–24.
71.Sartelli M, Weber DG, Ruppe E, Bassetti M, Wright BJ, Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F,
Abu-Zidan FM, Coimbra R, Moore EE, Moore FA, Maier RV, De Waele JJ, Kirkpatrick AW,
Griffiths EA, Eckmann C, Brink AJ, Mazuski JE, May AK, Sawyer RG, Mertz D, Montravers


14

A. Simpson et al.
P, Kumar A, Roberts JA, Vincent JL, Watkins RR, Lowman W, Spellberg B, Abbott IJ,
Adesunkanmi AK, Al-Dahir S, Al-Hasan MN, Agresta F, Althani AA, Ansari S, Ansumana R,
Augustin G, Bala M, Balogh ZJ, Baraket O, Bhangu A, Beltran MA, Bernhard M, Biffl WL,
Boermeester MA, Brecher SM, Cherry-Bukowiec JR, Buyne OR, Cainzos MA, Cairns KA,
Camacho-Ortiz A, Chandy SJ, Che Jusoh A, Chichom-Mefire A, Colijn C, Corcione F, Cui Y,
Curcio D, Delibegovic S, Demetrashvili Z, De Simone B, Dhingra S, Diaz JJ, Di Carlo I, Dillip
A, Di Saverio S, Doyle MP, Dorj G, Dogjani A, Dupont H, Eachempati SR, Enani MA, Egiev
VN, Elmangory MM, Ferrada P, Fitchett JR, Fraga GP, Guessennd N, Giamarellou H, Ghnnam
W, Gkiokas G, Goldberg SR, Gomes CA, Gomi H, Guzman-Blanco M, Haque M, Hansen S,
Hecker A, Heizmann WR, Herzog T, Hodonou AM, Hong SK, Kafka-Ritsch R, Kaplan LJ,
Kapoor G, Karamarkovic A, Kees MG, Kenig J, Kiguba R, et al. Antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections (AGORA). World J Emerg
Surg. 2016;11:33.


2

Inflammatory Mediators in
Intra-­abdominal Sepsis
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Jimmy Xiao, Craig N. Jenne,
and Derek J. Roberts

2.1

 bdominal Sepsis, Inflammatory Mediators,
A
and Possible Therapeutic Strategies

The current consensus definitions for sepsis have defined sepsis as “life-threatening
organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection” [3, 4]. This
new definition emphasizes the primacy of non-homeostatic host response to infection. Yet, at present, there is no gold-standard diagnostic test for this syndrome,
mainly due to the current challenges in the microbiologic confirmation of infection.
Thus, the clinical criteria of “suspected infection,” which include clinical signs and
symptoms in a patient who requires antimicrobial treatment or body fluid culture,
are suggested for operationalization proxies.
However, the clinical manifestations of sepsis are identical to those secondary to
systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The cause of SIRS can be infectious or noninfectious insults such as trauma, major surgery, acute pancreatitis, or

A.W. Kirkpatrick, M.D., M.H.Sc., F.R.C.S.C. (*)
Regional Trauma Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Synder Institute for Chronic Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
e-mail: Andrew.Kirkpatrick@albertahealthservices.ca
J. Xiao, M.D., Ph.D.
Regional Trauma Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
C.N. Jenne, Ph.D.
Synder Institute for Chronic Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
D.J. Roberts, M.D., Ph.D.
Regional Trauma Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
M. Sartelli et al. (eds.), Abdominal Sepsis, Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery
and Trauma, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59704-1_2

15


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay

×

×